9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, we respectively following the decision of the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal allow this ground of appeal and direct the AO to allow the interest so earned by the assessee for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IA. AO is further directed to compute the amount after netting off the interest paid and interest received by the assessee during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. As regards sundry credit balance written off AO has rejected the claim of the assessee without giving any reason as to how the amounts in question are not eligible for the claim u/s 80IA. Similarly, the CIT(A) has affirmed the findings of the AO discussing the general principles of the law without giving specific reasons as to why the amounts in question cannot be treated as profits and gains derived from the eligible business of the assessee. Moreover, CIT(A) has not given any reason for taking a view contrary to the view already taken in the assessee’s appeal pertaining to the assessment year 2010-11 in the similar set of facts. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not based on cogent and convincing reasons. Hence, keeping in view the na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13,06,520/- 2. Interest on fixed deposit ₹ 1,46,742/- 3. Balance Return back ₹ 3,95,807/- 4. Miscellaneous Income ₹ 2,26,895/- 3. The AO relying on the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sterling Foods 237 ITR 579 and Orissa State Warehousing Corporation 237 ITR 589 held that the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA holding that since the aforesaid income has not been derived from business activities of the assessee, the same is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. Against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The assessee has raised the following effective grounds of appeal against the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A):- 1. The Hon ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-21), Mumbai, has erred in view of the facts and in the circumstances of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dentical issue in favour of the assessee in assessee s own appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 holding that the income from rent received by the assessee is directly related to the main business of the assessee and the amount is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. The Ld. DR did not point out any difference of facts in the assessee s case for both the years. Admittedly, the issues involved in AY 2010-11 and the assessment year under consideration are identical. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) has not given any reason for taking a view inconsistent with the view taken in the earlier year on the identical issue. Under these circumstances, we do not find any reason to agree with the Ld. CIT(A). Moreover, the facts relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) is different from the facts of the present case. We therefore, set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the disallowance made in respect of the rental income earned by the assessee. 8. In respect of interest income received on fixed deposit the Ld. counsel submitted that ₹ 25,000/-was pledged with the Sales Tax Authorities for issuing various forms from time to time. Similarly, ₹ 15,56,500 was pledg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er expression as used in section 80-IA, i.e., ';profits and gains derived from any business of an industrial undertaking';. As such the Rulings of these courts are not applicable to the instant case before us. 11. The issue involved in this case is identical to the issue involved in the case of ACIT vs. Max care Laboratories Ltd. (supra). In the present case also the assessee had to make deposits under business compulsion. The revenue has not brought to our notice any decision contrary to the findings aforesaid rendered in similar set of facts. Hence, we respectively following the decision of the Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal allow this ground of appeal and direct the AO to allow the interest so earned by the assessee for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. However, AO is further directed to compute the amount after netting off the interest paid and interest received by the assessee during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. 12. As regards sundry credit balance written off during the year amounting to ₹ 3,95,807/-, the ld. counsel submitted that M/s Manulal and Sons, one of the vendors for interior work, executed work for CF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken in the assessee s appeal pertaining to the assessment year 2010-11 in the similar set of facts. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are not based on cogent and convincing reasons. Hence, keeping in view the nature of income earned by the assessee in this case i.e., balance written back and miscellaneous income, we hold that the said amounts should be treated as profits and gains derived from the eligible business. Accordingly, we set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to treat the said amounts as profits and gains derived from the eligible business of the assessee. ITA No. 6205/MUM/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-2011) This appeal of assessee pertains to the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee engaged in the business of operating container, freight station, filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring the total income of ₹ 1,53,62,861/-. It was noticed from the details submitted by the assessee that an amount of ₹ 23,58,364/- pertaining to Dadri Unit (eligible for deduction u/s 80IA) has not been reduced from the profit of Dadri Unit for claiming deduction u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee s appeal pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10 and directed the AO to compute the total income after netting off the interest paid and interest received by the assessee during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, consistent with our findings, we partly allow this ground of appeal and direct the AO to compute the total income of the assessee after netting off the interest paid and interest received by the assessee during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration 5. So far as the interest received on IT refund is concerned, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted before us that in this case the IT refund arises as a result of tax deducted at source by various customers of the assessee who used CFS facilities. Therefore, the interest of ₹ 3,13,385/-being related to the business of the assessee, eligible for the benefits u/s 80IA of the Act. The Ld. counsel placing reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal rendered in the case of ITO vs. Hiranandani Builders (2015) TTJ (Mumbai) 533, submitted that interest received by the assessee on TDS refund should be netted off against the interest expenditure for the purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
